United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
SUSAN DIETRICH, LINDA BROWN, ELIZABETH RAMON and RITA SETTLE, Plaintiffs,
v.
JUDITHANN HAGNER, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS
B. SMITH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pending
before the Court is pro se Defendant Judithann Hagner's
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (Doc. 3). Because I find that the Court does
not have jurisdiction, I respectfully recommend that the case
be REMANDED and that Defendant's motion
be DENIED.
Background
Plaintiffs
Susan Dietrich, Linda Brown, Elizabeth Ramon and Rita Settle
filed this case in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida on July
28, 2017 (Doc. 2). They allege that they are employees of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Seminole County, Florida where
Defendant has filed multiple lawsuits, all of which have been
dismissed with prejudice and affirmed on two appeals
(Id., ¶¶ 3-4). Plaintiffs aver that
Defendant's claims result from the suspension of her
Florida identification card(s) based upon her failure to pay
fines associated with a criminal infraction (Id.,
¶ 6). Plaintiffs seeks injunctive relief to preclude
Defendant from filing any more pro se lawsuits arising out of
the same operative facts that have already been adjudicated
in prior state court cases (Id., at 3).
On
February 13, 2018, Defendant removed the case to this Court
(Doc. 1). Her notice of removal is rambling and in places,
incoherent (Doc. 1). Defendant alleges in conclusory fashion
that Plaintiffs and their lawyer are wrong and have filed a
frivolous lawsuit against her (Id., at 1). She
states that the complaint violates the Fourth and Sixth
Amendments to the Constitution, and that she has been denied
due process, a fair and impartial hearing, and the right to
counsel (Id.).
Defendant
alleges that Plaintiffs are corrupt, and have something to do
with the illegal suspension of her personal privileges, and
the failure to pay her money, all in violation of the
“CONSUMER CREDIT FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT
15USC 1692K VIOLATIONS, 690 OTHER ACTIONS BASED ON ACTS OR
BILLS, 375 FLASE CLAIMS ACT, ACTIONS FILED ALLEDGING FRAUD
31USC3729.” (Id., at 2).
Next,
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs' counsel is the cause
of negligence including mixing up unidentified documents and
files (Id.). She references “two extortion
letters from clerks, ” and appears to claim that
whatever debt she owed was paid in full (Id.).
Defendant continues, relating a conversation with Circuit
Judge Lester's judicial assistant confirming payment
(Id., at 3).
Then,
Defendant states that Plaintiffs “illegally suspended
identification numbers from photo cards fl of
[Defendant].” (Id., at 3). This is followed by
allegations that Plaintiffs and their lawyer have
“continued to cause double jeopardy blackmail,
extortion, threatened [Defendant].” (Id.).
Notwithstanding some of her earlier claims, Defendant then
appears to allege that she has never had a vehicle, a
driver's license, or a traffic violation of any kind
(Id.). She concludes with a claim that Plaintiffs
have violated nonexistent Fla. Stat. § 769.625, and that
they, along with their lawyer, owe her a total of $155, 550
(Id., at 4). Defendant seeks leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 3).
Discussion
Federal
court removal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which
states that “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided
by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court
of which the district courts of the United States have
original jurisdiction may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants to the district court of the United States for the
district and division embracing the place where such action
is pending.”
Procedurally,
removal is governed by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1446, as
amended by the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue
Clarification Act of 2011 which provides:
(1) The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding
shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the
defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the
initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon
which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 days
after the service of summons upon the defendant if such
initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not
required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is
shorter.
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
(3) Except as provided in subsection (c), if the case stated
by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal
may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant,
through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended
pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may
...